This could also be titled cause and effect. In either case we are expected to believe the ‘experts’. An expression from long ago was “Just give me the facts”. Now we are listening to knowledgeable people giving us the ‘facts’ as they know them. How are we to assess what are facts let alone what caused them? We are caught up in controversy.

Scientists are telling us both what is happening and why. And that’s the story of global warming. On the Copenhagen conference debate on the ‘Agenda’ last week one member of the panel told us the ‘fact’ of melting Arctic ice just wasn’t true. “There is more ice forming now than at any time in history”. Yet we know from aerial photography that polar ice has declined. There can be no doubt that glaciers are melting. Historians are telling us that Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania has never been free of snow but now we see pictures showing us Africa’s tallest mountain clear of ice.

Is melting ice an indication of global warming or is this extreme evidence of a naturally occurring cycle? Receding ice is a fact but why? Many opinions have been forwarded and since we have no way of knowing, is this guesswork or is there some viable scientific information of which we have no knowledge.

Are ocean temperatures rising? What is the significance of an annual increase of 2 mm increase is sea depth? Do we place trust in formulae for measuring air and/or water temperatures on which we can depend as facts?

We ‘know’ that the CO2 content of the air is currently about 380 parts per million compared to the 280 ppm found in the atmosphere prior to the industrial era. Has this caused global temperature to rise by 0.6 degrees in the last 100 years? Scientists world wide tell us the reason is mancaused emissions and that both emissions and temperature are bound to increase over the coming century. Opinions appear to indicate that we are facing a rise of two degrees Centigrade by the year 2020 and we can expect that this will coincide with about 440 ppm CO2 concentration by that time. Is this pure conjecture? What does this mean in terms of coastal flooding, desertification and starvation levels for a population of probably over 8 billion people?

This data is pertinent to conferences such as the one held in Copenhagen attended by delegates with widely different agendas. Unquestionably those from low elevation South Pacific islands or countries such as Bangladesh are concerned with a possible rise in ocean levels which could inundate whole populations.

Countries relying on marginal arid lands such as those south of the equator in Africa, can expect severe loss in food productivity meaning large scale starvation. Having to relocate millions of people living in coastal cities will certainly cause major population disruption particularly in third world cities.

We have already experienced severe climatic catastrophes in countries such as those on the Caribbean coast. Will global warming increase the number and severity of hurricanes and cyclones with their associated loss of life and property as occurred in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit the coast?

We listen to the philosophy of those from industrialized countries who envisage the affect of global warming on the pocket book. Life and death compared to dollars and cents.

What of the psychological argument that countries responsible for causing the problem should carry the bulk of responsibility for solving it? Or that those from lands who are living high off the hog are motivated to prevent people in poor countries from wanting to achieve a similar standard of living. Who wins an argument pitting starvation vs. affluence?

Whatever happened to the old saying we either sink or swim together?

The Copenhagen Conference failed to reach a common goal so the debate goes on. We are left with trying to find what are the ‘facts’ in the matter and the even greater problem of what do they mean as we try to determine what we are going to do about it. In the meantime we are left with the results of indecision for our children and their offspring.